This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

WARNING: TRUTH ALERT!!!
Bush Lied, People Died Dems reading this must have telephone at the ready to dial 911 in case serious health problems emerge from reading what follows.

Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Cohen stated in a televised
Pentagon press briefing that the “UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth....We face a clear and present danger today.... [The] terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of 250,000 people that they were determined to kill.”

Note: The UN Inspecteurs de la UN were kicked out less than 1-year later.

“Prepare the Country for War”

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the “White House
decided to prepare the country for war.” According to the Times, “[t]he decision was
made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare.”
“How Tough Questions and Shrewd Mediating Brought Iraqi Showdown to an End,”
New York Times, November 23, 1997.

During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically
directed Cohen “to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat.”
“Diplomacy and Doubts on the Road to War,”
Washington Post, March 1, 1998.

On Sunday, November 16, Cohen made a widely-reported appearance on ABC’s This
Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that
amount of anthrax “would destroy at least half the population” of Washington, D.C.
Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. “One of the
things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days.” He noted that Iraq “has had enormous amounts” of anthrax. Cohen also spoke about the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: “One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such—one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.” Finally, he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill “millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms.”
ABC News “This Week,” November 16, 1997.

David Kay:...It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.

All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.

And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen (Clinton Administration) who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.

And I refer you again -- if you go back to Secretary Cohen's testimony before this committee, Secretary Cohen, in the Clinton administration, was not referring to anthrax that might be produced in some reconstituted program. He was referring to actual weapons.

Now on to the Dems selective memory:

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Hate to pop your partisan nonsense bubble, but no one truned on THEM. Many fought for them and against the harm Bush was doing to them.

Harm Bush was doing? Seems Obama said it was a success.
To think you actually believe the Left didn't turn on Bush is hilarious... absolutely one of the biggest larfs on this site. Check their votes for the war, then check their projectile vomit rhetoric, supported by the equally vile Journolists.

You have to care about wasting their lives needlessly in order to fight for them. If those lives mean little to a parson, that person will accept any reason to spend those those lives. Some of us value their lives and don't want them spend recklessly or without just cause or a valid reason.

More revealing poison: Their lives were not wasted. They did not die in vain. Their mission was not reckless. What was reckless was the Dems and their leadership scoring huge headlines for folks like al Jazeera. None worse than a Democrat declaring "the war is lost" while our troops are on the battle field. Calling them Nazi's... air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians... all from the lips of Dem's treasonous leaders.

With your logic, pre-911 we should have left bin Laden alone. Taking him out (Clinton had the opportunity and balked) would have saved 3000 lives and all the destruction in NYC, DC and the plane that went down in PA. But we need more evidence to take care of business... even though Saddam lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to disarm.

Yes, you have to care... and Bush did... but the bigger picture is we had a guy that lost Gulf War 1, was supposed to disarm and hadn't after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. Post 911... Bush gave Saddam a chance. Now we have a democracy established, where Dems claimed it couldn't happen. Just go back and listen to the crap out of Biden's mouth alone. Wrong and disgusting... the entire lot of you SAPs.

Too many on your side of the isle simply played stupid and tried to trun real concerns into something unpatriotic. Such people are vile and dishonest. There is no place in reasoned discourse for such stupidity and deception. So, no, you can't start out the way you do in this thread and be taken seriously.

ROTFLMFAO... played stupid? You folks and your leadership acted in a treasonous manner and now want to be forgiven. Your side voted on this TWICE... and asked for the second vote... so... Screw you. Your record is clear... just as it was in Vietnam... but this time your aiding and abetting the enemy didn't work.

There was ONE democrat who went against the perverted mania of your party, and look what happened to Lieberman? Look at what Dems tried to do to him. Why? Because he was the lone wolf supporting the mission fully.

It's not as if Americans couldn't vote on it either. They did in 2004, and Bush's stay the course won... vs. Dr. Flip Flop.

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

Again, NO PROOF! Just alot of speculation, but nothing concrete. And other than Iraqies and Iran, who else did Saddam use his chemical weapons against? NOBODY! Yeah, he launched a few SCUD missiles at Isreal, but none hit their target. Plus, Isreal can pretty much hold their own. In any case, we still had their back.

A lot of speculation... ROTFLOL.

Who else did he use WMD against... ROTFLOL... like we need further proof he would use them... or perhaps hand them off to terrorists. He only tried to assassinate a former president; I guess that was a love note to America?

Have you forgotten Saddam invaded a neighbor, lost Gulf War 1 and was supposed to disarm? Not in 12-years, not play hide-and-seek... as noted by Hans Blix. Also noted by Blix was his belief the programs would be reconstituted. Not anymore they're not.

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

BTW, my critical thinking ability is just fine. I just don't believe our President should lie to the American people - no...scare the country using misleading information - to justify going to war.

Your critical thinking is awash in poison.
There is nothing critical about it. You cannot face facts:

1. Dems voted for the war, asking for a second vote of support and getting it. These votes were for political expediency.
2. Foreign governments agreed he had WMD.
3. Blix believed he had WMD.
4. Congress for years warned about Saddam, with POTUS Clinton and VP Gore claiming he was a threat and threatening action (war).
5. The Dems turned on the troops and the mission for political expediency.
6. Democracy has taken hold in Iraq, a nuke blackmarket stopped, and terrorist influence in the country reduced.
7. Dems now seek to rewrite their treasonous past.

KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

But it's over now...cost the country over 4,400 lives and billions of dollars and for what? To bring democracy to a country that didn't ask us to interven in their affairs?

Didn't ask us to intervene? Unbelievable... LOL... yeah, I guess not... 100% of the folks voted for Saddam in his last "election". We intervened during Gulf War 1, and from there the job of disarmament was not finished after 12-years and 16 UN resolutions. You see, there is a history and reason we were there.

Do you recall George Tenet claiming the WMD case was a "Slam Dunk"? Of course not... Bush should ignore the reams of evidence that Saddam's closed, brutal society had WMD... especially post 911, and post 911 ANTHRAX attacks on the Capitol.

Blix stated the case; weaponized VX and ANTHRAX... playing hide-and-seek. David Kay adds to Blix's case:

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

Lets just get one thing straight here, you can support the troops, without supporting the war. They are not exclusive to each other.

Just before that gets tossed around some more.

Yeah let's pull the cover off and expose the crap underneath.

Support the troops but not the mission?
ROTFLOL... means you do not support the troops. You harm their mission, and thereby harm the troops. You embolden the enemy. That is not supporting the troops. Nothing remotely close. And it's not as if you folks were silent about this... you folks were rabid.

But "you can support the troops, without supporting the war"... that's Liberal "Logic" for ya.

In fact, you folks were hostile, and your leadership irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst. Your party is the favorite of al Jazeera... why?

Dems leaders claiming to the world:
"The surge isn't working". (This mantra was party wide)
"The war is lost".
"Nazi's".
"Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians".

This about our own troops while they are fighting on the battle field!!!

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

Originally Posted by zimmer

Yeah let's pull the cover off and expose the crap underneath.

Support the troops but not the mission?
ROTFLOL... means you do not support the troops. You harm their mission, and thereby harm the troops. You embolden the enemy. That is not supporting the troops. Nothing remotely close. But that's Liberal "Logic" for ya.

In fact, you folks were hostile, and your leadership irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst. Your party is the favorite of al Jazeera... why?

Dems leaders claiming to the world:
"The surge isn't working". (This mantra was party wide)
"The war is lost".
"Nazi's".
"Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians".

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

Originally Posted by zimmer

WARNING: TRUTH ALERT!!!
Bush Lied, People Died Dems reading this must have telephone at the ready to dial 911 in case serious health problems emerge from reading what follows.
Note: The UN Inspecteurs de la UN were kicked out less than 1-year later.

Harm Bush was doing? Seems Obama said it was a success.
To think you actually believe the Left didn't turn on Bush is hilarious... absolutely one of the biggest larfs on this site. Check their votes for the war, then check their projectile vomit rhetoric, supported by the equally vile Journolists.

More revealing poison: Their lives were not wasted. They did not die in vain. Their mission was not reckless. What was reckless was the Dems and their leadership scoring huge headlines for folks like al Jazeera. None worse than a Democrat declaring "the war is lost" while our troops are on the battle field. Calling them Nazi's... air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians... all from the lips of Dem's treasonous leaders.

With your logic, pre-911 we should have left bin Laden alone. Taking him out (Clinton had the opportunity and balked) would have saved 3000 lives and all the destruction in NYC, DC and the plane that went down in PA. But we need more evidence to take care of business... even though Saddam lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to disarm.

Yes, you have to care... and Bush did... but the bigger picture is we had a guy that lost Gulf War 1, was supposed to disarm and hadn't after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. Post 911... Bush gave Saddam a chance. Now we have a democracy established, where Dems claimed it couldn't happen. Just go back and listen to the crap out of Biden's mouth alone. Wrong and disgusting... the entire lot of you SAPs.

ROTFLMFAO... played stupid? You folks and your leadership acted in a treasonous manner and now want to be forgiven. Your side voted on this TWICE... and asked for the second vote... so... Screw you. Your record is clear... just as it was in Vietnam... but this time your aiding and abetting the enemy didn't work.

There was ONE democrat who went against the perverted mania of your party, and look what happened to Lieberman? Look at what Dems tried to do to him. Why? Because he was the lone wolf supporting the mission fully.

It's not as if Americans couldn't vote on it either. They did in 2004, and Bush's stay the course won... vs. Dr. Flip Flop.

A lot of speculation... ROTFLOL.

Who else did he use WMD against... ROTFLOL... like we need further proof he would use them... or perhaps hand them off to terrorists. He only tried to assassinate a former president; I guess that was a love note to America?

Have you forgotten Saddam invaded a neighbor, lost Gulf War 1 and was supposed to disarm? Not in 12-years, not play hide-and-seek... as noted by Hans Blix. Also noted by Blix was his belief the programs would be reconstituted. Not anymore they're not.

Your critical thinking is awash in poison.
There is nothing critical about it. You cannot face facts:

1. Dems voted for the war, asking for a second vote of support and getting it. These votes were for political expediency.
2. Foreign governments agreed he had WMD.
3. Blix believed he had WMD.
4. Congress for years warned about Saddam, with POTUS Clinton and VP Gore claiming he was a threat and threatening action (war).
5. The Dems turned on the troops and the mission for political expediency.
6. Democracy has taken hold in Iraq, a nuke blackmarket stopped, and terrorist influence in the country reduced.
7. Dems now seek to rewrite their treasonous past.

Didn't ask us to intervene? Unbelievable... LOL... yeah, I guess not... 100% of the folks voted for Saddam in his last "election". We intervened during Gulf War 1, and from there the job of disarmament was not finished after 12-years and 16 UN resolutions. You see, there is a history and reason we were there.

Do you recall George Tenet claiming the WMD case was a "Slam Dunk"? Of course not... Bush should ignore the reams of evidence that Saddam's closed, brutal society had WMD... especially post 911, and post 911 ANTHRAX attacks on the Capitol.

Blix stated the case; weaponized VX and ANTHRAX... playing hide-and-seek. David Kay adds to Blix's case:

.

Still misrepresenting the quotes I see. The Clinton quotes are before Cohen declare the threat over. Keep that in mind, he declared the threat over. Others were made in opposition to the war. So, check out snopes and get context and quite pretending such misrepresentations make every equal to the decider, the one who decided to invade.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

Congratulations! You have successfully hijacked this thread turning it from the overall tenor of the President's speech into a rehash of history concerning the merits for going to War w/Iraq.

I'll make my final statement on the matter and then I'm done.

Again, all you've provided are speculations whether from the Clinton administration or the GW Bush administration. Neither side had the absolute "proof" they needed to justify going to war with Iraq.

Yes, I am very much aware of why GH Bush toppled Saddam's Army during the Gulf War - a lessor militerized nation asked for his help directly to oust Saddam out of his country. I was on active duty at the time. But that was different!

Now, we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons, but they weren't the big threat GW Bush used to justify going to war. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the obvious - THERE WERE NOT WMDs...i.e., NUKES! But even if all U.S./U.N. forces were suppose to find were stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, even they didn't exist to the numbers this country - THE WORLD - was led to believe from the speech/presentation former SecofState Powell gave to the U.N.

Dirty bombs...a "relationship" btwn Saddam and a known 9/11 hijackers (1 meeting that proved to be FALSE!)..."depleted" yellow cake, no weaponized chemical or biological weapons...

Nothing that we were told to "prepare for war against" involving Iraq has proven to be accurate other than there did appear to be remnants of chemical and biological weapons production/munitions left behind, but NOTHING substantial even to go to war over. NOTHING!!!!

My position stands where justification for going to war w/Iraq is concerned. That doesn't mean I didn't support our troops once they were there. But it does mean that as a prior service Navy veteran, I want to know that my Commander-in-Chief is sending myself and my fellow comrades in arms into a fight over a just cause, not trumped up charges over...?

To feed his ego for world dominance (because that's exactly what Hitler and Stalin tried to do and they both failed)...?

None of it made sense, not even the idea of "nation building" or "regime change". It wasn't our job to do these things. That remained a U.N. problem for humanitarian reasons; it should never have been our country's place alone to stop genecide in a country that wasn't causing us problems directly.

Still, as I've said, it's over...done...finished. I just hope history proves me wrong because I'd hate to think all those American lives were lost for nothing.

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

What Rebuttal.

You've just sat there calling half your country traitors... using nothing more then your own warped logic and opinions.

Yes, you're correct. I did frame them as traitors. They are.
Even worse, their leadership is as low and scummy as you can get. Sending troops to battle, and then crapping on them and their mission at every turn, and encouraging the idiocy.

Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

Zimmer,
Again, all you've provided are speculations whether from the Clinton administration or the GW Bush administration. Neither side had the absolute "proof" they needed to justify going to war with Iraq.

Ahhhh... genius... in a closed society you never will know unless they cooperate. They didn't... and that with 12-years and 16 Resolutions.

Yes, I am very much aware of why GH Bush toppled Saddam's Army during the Gulf War - a lessor militerized nation asked for his help directly to oust Saddam out of his country. I was on active duty at the time. But that was different!

Yes, it is different. It is cleaning up a mess he agreed to do... and didn't. We're not talking used cars... we're talking about WMD. Sec. of Defense Cohen spelled it out quite clear.

Now, we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons, but they weren't the big threat GW Bush used to justify going to war.

You are insane.
I suppose if someone said people would fly planes into NYC you'd say... nah... never been done... impossible.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore the obvious - THERE WERE NOT WMDs...i.e., NUKES!

ROTFLOL... Nice try.
ANTHRAX and VX (of which Blixreported they had weaponized) are WMD.

But even if all U.S./U.N. forces were suppose to find were stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, even they didn't exist to the numbers this country - THE WORLD - was led to believe from the speech/presentation former SecofState Powell gave to the U.N.

The UN, German, French, Russians, Brits all believed he had WMD. Powell believed he had WMD, and he's no country bumpkin... he was only the Joint Chiefs General during GW1.

Nothing that we were told to "prepare for war against" involving Iraq has proven to be accurate other than there did appear to be remnants of chemical and biological weapons production/munitions left behind, but NOTHING substantial even to go to war over. NOTHING!!!

Years of reports going back to Clinton had folks believing he had WMD and would use them. Kay believed we might not have dodged the bullet. Clinton had Cohen make the public aware of the threat.

Saddam had 12-years to come clean... about 8 too many.

My position stands where justification for going to war w/Iraq is concerned. That doesn't mean I didn't support our troops once they were there. But it does mean that as a prior service Navy veteran, I want to know that my Commander-in-Chief is sending myself and my fellow comrades in arms into a fight over a just cause, not trumped up charges over...?

Trumped up charges... you accusing Clinton, Gore, Cohen, Kennedy, Daschle, Albright... as they made the case years before Bush did, and they made the claim when Saddam chucked the Inspecteurs out.

None of it made sense, not even the idea of "nation building" or "regime change". It wasn't our job to do these things. That remained a U.N. problem for humanitarian reasons; it should never have been our country's place alone to stop genecide in a country that wasn't causing us problems directly.

We defeated Iraq, and we were to see to that he disarmed because it was in our interests. The UN failed to get the job done, and Clinton failed to help them get the job done.

His wife made the case for war to no other than Code Pink.
The start of the vid is gut splitting funny.
She starts flapping her gums at the 7:00 min mark.

Still, as I've said, it's over...done...finished.

As long as there are folks like you... it's never over... because we can't let your rewrite of history stand.

I just hope history proves me wrong because I'd hate to think all those American lives were lost for nothing.

They weren't. That a government stands in Iraq, that people can vote, don't have to fear rape rooms or speaking ill of the despot, that they are at peace with their neighbors, and that we have the seed of democracy planted in the ME... is huge. And we don't have to deal with that trouble maker again. It could have been so easy... all HE had to do was live up to his end of the deal and disarm.